Of course you are. Good. Now, let’s see... how should I put this? Look, you’ve done a great job cultivating that whole “spook” image for the past 60 years. Really, you’ve just been terrifyingly adept at creating an environment of ironclad secrecy, even more so than the CIA, who has bungled too many overseas jobs to be the omnipotent, untouchable agency it would like us to think it is.

Times are changing, though. For the past several generations, you’ve been the rulers of all information, with no one to challenge you. Americans just had to trust that the good quiet folk at the NSA were looking out for them, because no one else could handle data on such a large scale. It was a simpler time, back when the Internet was young and the Web was just a seed of an idea, and our idea of “big data” was the Yellow Pages.

There are new kids in town, though—kids who grew up on data. They were raised to dish out and take in as much data as possible, and they do it for fun. To you, Facebook, Twitter, Tumblr, and all the rest of it are the latest places from which to siphon information. To these new kids, it’s home. It’s where they grew up, which is why they’re much better at it, and why you hire so many of them.

Now, what happens when you raise a generation on a steady diet of data, and then try to keep naughty secrets? They’re going to ask questions. They grew up in a world where information was free, and they took advantage of that fact. They learned more about the world around them than could ever be learned in school, and they went online for the answers to the questions their parents and teachers wouldn’t answer. They grew up not just appreciating that information was free, but expecting information to be free.

It gets worse. Not only are you hiring millennials, for whom secrecy is anathema—you’re hiring millennial hackers. And hacking, as you well know, means finding ways of turning technology to serve a purpose other than its intended one. When information isn’t free, these people have the ability and the will to free it.

I know this because I’m one of them. I may not have top-secret clearance and make six figures working for one of your contractors, but Edward Snowden’s demographic profile still hits close to home. When I was a boy, I used to hack into my computer games to add fart sounds to them. I built my own computers. I made my sister’s Teddy Ruxpin say horrible, horrible things. When I get a new phone, its hackability is its number-one buying point.

When I get my hands on a new piece of technology, my first thought isn’t about what it can do—it’s about what it can’t do, and how can I force it to overcome its limitations to do what I want. I then wonder, “Why wasn’t I ‘allowed’ to do this in the first place?” See, we millennial hackers simply cannot take anything at face value. We’re a bit contrarian and stubborn by nature. It’s why we’re good at what we do. The more constraints you place on us (be they workplace, physical, technological, or copyright) the more we feel a need to disregard, challenge, or overcome those constraints.

To be a hacker is to be cynical about whatever “solid” information or limits you’re faced with, to remove layers of consumer sheen or government spin until raw components are laid bare to reconstruct at will. You reward people like me with fat salaries when we do this with technology, so there’s little sense in expecting us not do the same in the rest of our lives—with your policies, rules, information, even with our own personal lives. We tinker, probe, deconstruct, and reassemble for other purposes. One thing we don’t do is blindly put hand to heart and sing “God Bless America”—unless we’re in a North Korean gulag and it’s a contrarian move.

Do you see the problem? You need my kind of people for our understanding of data, but we don’t necessarily want or need you. You are anathema to our values and expectations. Sure, you’ve got some very smart graybeards who can do some amazing things, but they’re not going to be the bulk of your army for long, if they even still are. You have no choice but to keep hiring these hackers who didn’t grow up having data hidden from them. It’s ironic that you’ve become so reliant on people who really have no business in a tight-lipped, hierarchical quasi-militarized institution. We are the ones you should be snooping on, if only you could snoop without us.

Who is going to improve your security? Is it going to be the naval officers you used to hire, respectful of hierarchy and used to a military lifestyle? Or maybe, say, more young, technical lay-people—contractors with the information freedom ideals of the millennial hacker? Yeah, I thought so.

Let’s face it: This isn’t going to be the last time your secrets are aired to the public. It’s probably not even going to be the last time this year that your secrets are aired to the public by another Edward Snowden, because you’ve got countless Edward Snowdens on your payroll whose first—not last—instinct is to blow open your information infrastructure. I mean, you tried to recruit me years ago, for goodness' sake. Those confidential recruitment materials that said “For Your Eyes Only” all over them? Yeah, I showed those to everyone I knew, mostly because you were so heavy-handed with all the confidential stuff.

The important thing now is not to panic. No tears. You’re a big, strong, spooky organization, right? You don’t have to clean out your desk. You’ve still got a big role to play in the cyber-warfare of the next several decades. You’re just learning a hard lesson here, and I realize you’re partly being demonized for implementing what the White House and Congress want. However, you have no choice but to keep hiring these young, entitled, informed, data-driven hackers, who pretty soon might not have any secrets to leak because the Snowdens in your midst will have forced you to turn into a fully transparent (but still efficient!) organization.

Now that I think of it, you really should have played up the six-figure salary and Hawaii angle in those recruiting materials you gave me. I would’ve kept your secrets. Really.

203 Reader Comments

From the NSA's point of view, we're just a bunch of immature kids who need to learn a lesson about "the real world." So any new leaker who comes forward will be dealt with harshly. This will likely discourage some, but not all future leakers. But only time will tell who is the teacher and who is the pupil.

This letter tries to make it sound as if it is possible to have a democratic society with an organization like the NSA around.

Let me put it this way, there might be roles for the NSA as you say, but I think you're being too lenient on the NSA - it will in its current state, help be the end (combined with the corporate interests) of the democracy that it was ostensibly supposed to protect.

The other thing is, a lot of the stuff that the US government classifies should have never been classified to begin with. Over-classification has been inhibiting the function of the government.

If the folks at NSA were really smart they would find a way to do their jobs by removing all secrecy, theirs and more importantly everyone else's.

Secrets leak naturally. The Japanese say that "two can keep a secret, if one is dead." It's true. The probability of a conspiracy being blown is proportional to the power of the number of people involved. That's the nut of "conspiracy nut".

You can poison the inforrmation. The Soviets did a lot of that. We're still digging out from under it.

I keep reading about PRISM and thinking, if it's done to save lives and promote a feeling of security, imagine if the funding for the program instead went to Google to develop and market an affordable, subsidized, self-driving car? It would save exponentially more lives, and I don't know about you, but I'm FAR more terrified of the daily rush hour commute than I am terrorism.

I used to be really interested in computer security. I was in the reserves, my math scores were really high and I wanted to finish my degree and go work for the NSA. I never finished my degree so that never happened. I ended up needing to leave school for financial reasons and start working full time early. I used to look back on how things turned out with regret but the couple of times I have interfaced with government employed experts and seeing what they have to deal with I'm glad things worked out for me the way they did.

If I worked for the government my hands would be tied from doing anything interesting and I'm glad I don't spy on honest people for a living.

Not sure what it is exactly, but there is just something sad in that statement, something angst like, something disheartening, something lonely.

There's nothing lonely, disheartening or angsty about it. Our generation grew up having access to the most open society ever, information is freely exchanged and merit is measured on your contribution, not who you are. The 'net has been an all-inclusive society for those who wish to join it, where the norms of meatspace do not apply and where those who are outcast in everyday society find a home among their often geographically diverse peers.

The States interest in security is not for the purpose of enabling our society to live free from outside threat, it's about control. It used to be the communists, now it's the terrorists, but these fears propagated by government and the media, intended to control us work only if you are afraid. The problem is that most of society is afraid because we've been convinced by that same government and media to be afraid. And people who are afraid are easy to control.

"...voice or no voice, the people can always be brought to the bidding of the leaders. That is easy. All you have to do is tell them they are being attacked and denounce the pacifists for lack of patriotism and exposing the country to danger." -Hermann Göring at Nuremberg

Ahhh now I know this "open" letter is complete BS. I've seen that recruiting material and no where on it does it say “For Your Eyes Only”, its not even classified or confidential. Its given to a specific individual when they do it, that's true, but it is not marked “For Your Eyes Only” - not to mention the fact that they haven't just given out recruiting material to specific individuals for almost the last 20 years, but you can contact them and ask for them to send you something. Their "recruiting" material is on line on their web site, none of it is marked "For Your Eyes Only", distributed across the various subjects like pay, careers, etc....

Even if he had been approached by the NSA its not wonder they didn't hire him, from his "open" letter he is unstable. Based upon his letter, I wouldn't hire him for a critical or sensitive position of responsibility.

I'm surprised that the super secret government types haven't figured out that in the day of always on, instant connection you can't keep anything "top" secret for very long. Unless you want machines running everything entirely on their own there is always going to be someone willing to spill the beans when they feel you've overstepped your bounds.

While I applaude Mr. Snowden's efforts, having a population so firmly believing in information freedom is rather alarming. I couldn't care less for NSA-type snooping, but the economy needs secrets to stay stable - it is almost right to say that countries regulate themselves by only telling a few people what they need to know.

I can see myself being downvoted, but how far are we from a crazy and ingenius hacker tearing the world finance order apart?

Edit: I guess I do need to explain the "secrets" better. A lot of macro regulation is based on careful evaluations of when and how to implement a certain tool. If the details were leaked to interested parties, they could stand to profit billions by being more informed than others. If leaked to the general public, the reactions would likely nullify the actual tool. We don't live in a perfect world and information isn't free-flowing. I'd rather see sensitive stuff held by the government or central bank than private investors. Chain texting was a huge headache to HKSAR and Singapore during the depth of our last economic crisis, people would get word that the government is planning to do something and the next morning there's a 600-feet line of people desperate to get their life savings out.

Not sure what it is exactly, but there is just something sad in that statement, something angst like, something disheartening, something lonely.

There's nothing lonely, disheartening or angsty about it. Our generation grew up having access to the most open society ever, information is freely exchanged and merit is measured on your contribution, not who you are. The 'net has been an all-inclusive society for those who wish to join it, where the norms of meatspace do not apply and where those who are outcast in everyday society find a home among their often geographically diverse peers.

....and that's the part that sounds so lonely, disheartening or angsty, that those did not have a life which expanded beyond that because there is so much more. Even your own reply has a certain self exclusion lonely, disheartening or angsty sound to it. "Your" generation didn't grow up "having access to the most open society ever', "your" generation created their own illusion that they were in "the most open society ever'" because they were anonymous on the internet which made them free to adopt things and meanings as they wanted them to be in their own internet world and then apply them in some random manner to just about anything they wanted to complain about, "your" generation grew up on the internet doing what they wanted on the internet and when some members of "your" generation didn't get what they wanted members of "your" generation thought it would be OK to start stealing things like identity information and hacking bank account records or hacking other web sites because they didn't like them. Many in "Your" internet generation only pay attention to society when it benefits them and when it doesn't they have a temper tantrum about it or try to exploit it in some way to steal what they want instead of paying for it legitimately. Most in "your" internet generation live in narcissism. Most in "your" internet generation think that an "open society" means they can steal the work of others because they think it falls under the guise of their "free information" concept, without regard that its someone else property that they put their time and money into to produce to sell. Most in "your" generation believe that because its the internet it gives them some sort of right to force their will upon others. Stop fooling yourself, this is not some Matrix movie, yet even in the Matrix there comes a time when reality collides and the great decider is still the reality and responsibilities that the larger portion of "your" generation growing up on the internet runs away from. This is reality, the real world, its got nothing to do with if a generation grew up on the internet or not, and its time to accept the reality and responsibilities that come with being part of the real world.

just write what you want and save it in your drafts folder.Oh, and it seems it does not matter if you are using Microsofts Hotmail (or whatever they are calling it these days) or Googles Gmail or Apple's iMail... the NSA are friendly enough that they will dig into any online email box you may use

When I get my hands on a new piece of technology, my first thought isn’t about what it can do—it’s about what it can’t do, and how can I force it to overcome its limitations to do what I want. I then wonder, “Why wasn’t I ‘allowed’ to do this in the first place?” See, we millennial hackers simply cannot take anything at face value. We’re a bit contrarian and stubborn by nature. It’s why we’re good at what we do. The more constraints you place on us (be they workplace, physical, technological, or copyright) the more we feel a need to disregard, challenge, or overcome those constraints. To be a hacker is to be cynical about whatever “solid” information or limits you’re faced with, to remove layers of consumer sheen or government spin until raw components are laid bare to reconstruct at will.... We tinker, probe, deconstruct, and reassemble for other purposes.

I've been doing this with everything, not just electronics, for over 45 years. I certainly didn't call it 'hacking' when I was five and dissected an electromechanical T. Rex for examination. I didn't even have a single word for it, for that matter, for most of the time I was doing it, but it was the same mindset and activity.

Actually, maybe I did have a single word for it: perfectionism. I'm just never 100% happy with the mass-produced items made available to me. Mass production was *supposed* to be about creating the perfect design and then replicating that endlessly, but that isn't always how it's been implemented....

(One of my current projects is incremental improvement of a mass-market feline "food puzzle". The concept was good, but the implementation - both in specifics and choice of materials - was terrible. Rather than return it I've set about rectifying at least some of the poor choices. This is what a lot of "hacking" is all about: correcting those self-serving choices of the mass producers that only benefit the mass producers.)

-----

Addendum for the silent voters: Before you reach to click that down-arrow, buddy, ask yourself this question: Am I voting disapproval of his comment because it really contributed nothing unique or useful to the dialog - which was supposed to be the entire point of the voting system, or am I voting disapproval simply because I personally don't agree with or am unsettled by what he wrote? If the latter, would you kindly keep your vote to yourself and stop ruining the system for everyone else?

Post-addendum: Well whaddaya know... 13 more people took the bait after I added the addendum. There was nothing in my initial comment that could reasonably warrant a negative vote, since it unambiguously does add something unique or useful without violating any policies, yet it received one any way. It was at that point that I added the addendum. Even explicitly reminding people of the purpose of the voting doesn't stop them from abusing it. In fact, it motivates them to do it. Apparently the emotional age of some ARS Technica voters is about twelve.

The only reason we need such large, over-reaching government programs is to stop terrorists the US has helped create with it's own policies over the last 40 years. Its damage control for a problem they created and it doesn't appear they have learned how to stop creating the problem.

I honestly don't understand why everyone is so shocked by these revelations -- you know -- since they were already leaked ~7 years ago?! Doesn't anyone remember the guy that spilled the beans about the secured govt closets in the major interconnects? He even posted schematics. It was all off the shelf stuff. Its a bit naive to think that every country in the world isn't doing this same thing to their own pipes.

Gathering the data isn't particularly hard when you just hoover up every bit crossing the main trunks. The trick is finding something useful in a big pile of junk

Ahhh now I know this "open" letter is complete BS. I've seen that recruiting material and no where on it does it say “For Your Eyes Only”, its not even classified or confidential. Its given to a specific individual, that's true, but it is not marked “For Your Eyes Only”

Though when you begin the application process, you are "strongly encouraged" to not tell anyone, except maybe your spouse if you absolutely have to.

The States interest in security is not for the purpose of enabling our society to live free from outside threat, it's about control. It used to be the communists, now it's the terrorists, but these fears propagated by government and the media, intended to control us work only if you are afraid. The problem is that most of society is afraid because we've been convinced by that same government and media to be afraid. And people who are afraid are easy to control.

"...voice or no voice, the people can always be brought to the bidding of the leaders. That is easy. All you have to do is tell them they are being attacked and denounce the pacifists for lack of patriotism and exposing the country to danger." -Hermann Göring at Nuremberg

The Soviets, at least, were real. They turned entire countries into maximum security prisons.

The problem is that emergency measures become routine, and the sort of people who ran the Soviet Union get into positions of power here. They know what's best for the rest of us, and we'll get it whether we like it or not.

What generation your in or from has nothing to do with keeping classified data secure. Physical and electronic security aside, the ability to keep your howling yap shut and do the job your paid to do is a byproduct of maturity, respect, and trustworthiness. You will notice patritism isn't in there, as one's definition of patriotism changes over time, or quite suddenly (say, when you get hosed on a tax return).

You are either a mature, honest person capable of respecting the code of conduct, ethics or security requirements of a job, or you aren't.

This asshat will get his 15 minutes of fame, it's off to prison (hopefully), and hopefully on to a productive life. Needless to say, no one will ever trust him again. Ever. The internet never forgets.

The tone of this letter reminds me of those folks that slowly amble across the street in front of my car. They know they are jaywalking, and they know that they are irritating, and they look over at me with that "What are you going to do, hit me? Yeah, I didn't think so" stare.

Cyrus certainly seems full of himself -- Young people are *special*, and we old-timers can't match their l33t hax0r skllz or their love of open information.

Here's some news for Cyrus: "People aged 50+ aren't struggling in the computer age. These buggers created it." (The Register, <http://www.theregister.co.uk/2013/05/24/something_for_the_weekend_curse_you_old_computer_inventors/>.)

Cyrus certainly seems full of himself -- Young people are *special*, and we old-timers can't match their l33t hax0r skllz or their love of open information.

Here's some news for Cyrus: "People aged 50+ aren't struggling in the computer age. These buggers created it." (The Register, <http://www.theregister.co.uk/2013/05/24/something_for_the_weekend_curse_you_old_computer_inventors/>.)

The author's narcissism notwithstanding, I do not think Snowden blew the whistle because he belonged to some magical generation that has a unique world view that is somehow better than everyone else's. On the contrary, I think he did it for a very old-fashioned reason: patriotism. I think Snowden understood and internalized the Bill of Rights and the United States' founding ideals. That attitude, thankfully, is not exclusive to any generation.

Cyrus certainly seems full of himself -- Young people are *special*, and we old-timers can't match their l33t hax0r skllz or their love of open information.

Here's some news for Cyrus: "People aged 50+ aren't struggling in the computer age. These buggers created it."

*chuckle* I helped build the Internet by building 2 ISP's and an ASP from the ground up which now serve hundreds of thousands of customers....didnt see any "millenials"around then but that could be because they werent born to put all their stuff on MySpace or Facebook back then

Ofcourse, *I* am retired now and living comfortably on the income they are generating for me so I do owe them something.

What generation your in or from has nothing to do with keeping classified data secure. Physical and electronic security aside, the ability to keep your howling yap shut and do the job your paid to do is a byproduct of maturity, respect, and trustworthiness. You will notice patritism isn't in there, as one's definition of patriotism changes over time, or quite suddenly (say, when you get hosed on a tax return).

You are either a mature, honest person capable of respecting the code of conduct, ethics or security requirements of a job, or you aren't.

This asshat will get his 15 minutes of fame, it's off to prison (hopefully), and hopefully on to a productive life. Needless to say, no one will ever trust him again. Ever. The internet never forgets.

Glad you took some time away from standing in front of the bathroom mirror, practicing your "I was only following orders" speech. I hope some reflection on your ethics means you'll never have to use that defence.

Ahhh now I know this "open" letter is complete BS. I've seen that recruiting material and no where on it does it say “For Your Eyes Only”, its not even classified or confidential. Its given to a specific individual, that's true, but it is not marked “For Your Eyes Only”

Likely marketing spin to capitalize on the spycraft angle. There are guidelines for labeling of classified material. Material that isn't classified is fair game, so slap all the nonsense classification labels you want on it. Just don't use a genuine classification.